Announcements

Recently our Forums and Galleries were updated. If you are an existing member please be sure to use your DISPLAY NAME to log in. Your DISPLAY NAME is the name that other members and guests see on the forums. The prior version had both LOG-IN NAME and DISPLAY NAME. LOG-IN NAME is no longer used on the new version of the forums. Your password hasn't changed.

Recommended Posts

This is everyone's obvious suggestion. You should read through my earlier posts in this topic.

Based on Stockton's figures, Great Adventure would need over 26 of the same size lot. Stockton's lot was probably a few million dollars (1-5?), so SF would be looking at a cost of at least $26 million to.... $130 million?

But we also went over this and said they could reduce the amount of trees, if they put panels in the employee parklots and on top of every building that you can't see the top of, from the ground.

And before anyone says "You'll see if when you're on a coaster", right now you see the top of the buildings that look pretty bad, so if anything, solar panels would made them look better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But we also went over this and said they could reduce the amount of trees, if they put panels in the employee parklots and on top of every building that you can't see the top of, from the ground.

Yeah, you can do whatever you want if you have the money.

We could cut down 0 trees and lose 0 parking spots if we just launched solar panels into space. The panels would be closer to the sun too!

We'd continuously launch large batteries up to the panels, charge them, bring them back to Earth, and repeat. At $60 million per launch from Spacex, that adds up quite fast.

It's all about figuring out the most feasible option, and compromises have to be made somewhere. There's no way Six Flags will afford solar panels over all 90-100 acres of their parking lots. The difference in price is massive.

It's not like deciding between a small Pepsi for $3.00 or a large Pepsi for $3.50.

It's more like deciding between a small Pepsi in a plastic cup for $3.00 or a small re-usable cup for $3,000.00.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As part of the NASCAR media, I got to visit this solar farm just before it became active a few years back. Perhaps SFGA could use this to get good publicity, and exploit the "green" angle in commercials, especially to millennials.

LONG POND, PA (July 23, 2014) – Nearly four years to the day of the original dedication of Pocono Raceway’s solar farm, the total amount of energy produced by the 25-acre facility reached the 15,000,000 kilowatt hour (kWh) mark. “The Tricky Triangle’s” solar installation consists of 39,960 American-made photovoltaic modules (or solar panels) which will produce an estimated 72 Million kWh of energy over the next 20 years. The environmental attributes associated with the system will offset more than 3,104 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide annually and will generate enough power, beyond the power needs of Pocono Raceway, to provide the electricity needs for over 300 homes.

“It is amazing to see the amount of energy produced by the solar farm in this short period of time,” said Pocono Raceway President/CEO Brandon Igdalsky. “To put the amount of energy produced into layman’s terms, the solar farm has saved over 1,215,000 gallons of fuel. This would equal 121, 500 trips from New York City or Philadelphia to Pocono Raceway in a vehicle, such as an RV, using 10 miles per gallon of gasoline.

“When I watch the NASCAR Green commercial during race broadcasts, there is a line which asks Greg Biffle, ‘Got solar to power the sport?’ The amount of fuel we have saved would power the top three levels of NASCAR for about two-and-a-half seasons. So, I guess, we really could power the sport.”

The 15 million (kWh) produced has already impacted the environment. The total energy generated equals the use of more than 85,620 – 60Watt light bulbs for one year at eight hours per day and a saving of carbon dioxide (CO2) offset equaling 270,000 trees or 443,460 Propane BBQ Grills.

The Raceway has been awarded a number of environmental awards for its sustainable energy efforts including the Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards, Readers Choice Award presented by RenewableEnergyWorld.com and the Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence, presented each year by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. These awards highlight the best in environmental innovation and expertise.

I found this article from 2011 about when Rutgers approved building 32 acres of panels over the parking lot and produce 8 mW of power. They said that the cost of the project was about $40 million. Obviously, Six Flags would need more than that (I believe they need about 22mW), so in the end it probably would cost over $100 million. Yeah, that's a lot of money. However, Rutgers in the end actually only ended up paying less than $4 million for the project because of tax credits and SRECs. Here's the process they used as per the article

The $40.8 million project will utilize a combination of federal tax incentives, as well as New Jersey’s Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). SRECs are tradable certificates that represent the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a photovoltaic system. The SRECs can be sold to electric suppliers to provide a source of revenue to the university.

Through a competitive procurement process, the university will select a third-party project lessor to underwrite the cost of the construction. That party would be responsible for the upfront costs of the project, own the solar canopies and be able to take advantage of federal tax incentives. The university would make lease payments to the owner and be responsible for maintenance of the facility, but Rutgers will have rights to all the electricity generated by the project and the SRECs produced by the system. At the end of a 15-year lease term, Rutgers would purchase the facility at a fair market value – an estimated $3.6 million.

So if Six Flags were to do something similar to that they could certainly end up paying a lot less than the $100 million+ it would seemingly cost to build the solar panels over the lot. Also, the article mentions how because of the electricity savings and SRECs, it would net $28 million dollars over a 20 year period. They are already in the process of repaving the lot now anyway so this would correlate well with that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Had the park been able to start this project when they wanted the replacement trees would have already been a few years older already and a lot healthier specimens than the ones removed for the panels.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I found this article from 2011 about when Rutgers approved building 32 acres of panels over the parking lot and produce 8 mW of power. They said that the cost of the project was about $40 million. Obviously, Six Flags would need more than that (I believe they need about 22mW), so in the end it probably would cost over $100 million. Yeah, that's a lot of money. However, Rutgers in the end actually only ended up paying less than $4 million for the project because of tax credits and SRECs. Here's the process they used as per the article

So if Six Flags were to do something similar to that they could certainly end up paying a lot less than the $100 million+ it would seemingly cost to build the solar panels over the lot. Also, the article mentions how because of the electricity savings and SRECs, it would net $28 million dollars over a 20 year period. They are already in the process of repaving the lot now anyway so this would correlate well with that.

Thanks, I've been trying to find stats (mainly cost) on the Rutgers panels since this topic started.

Just making some observations:

The deal explained is interesting, but they will end up paying out more than $4 million for the panels (ignoring the $28 million net). They're currently leasing the panels from a third party, and then they'll buy the panels from the third party after 15 years for $3.6 million. That's 15 years of lease payments on top of the $3.6 million. I don't don't know what to estimate for that, but I assume it's much less than 40 million, yet still more than 4.

This is slightly different than Six Flags' situation.

SF's panels panels will be installed, owned, and maintained by KDC Solar. I believe there was no intent for Six Flags to purchase the panels after the contract with KDC ends. (I think it was a 20 year lease?) I believe KDC handles the SREC's and sells them to SF and potentially others.

Rutgers installed and maintains their panels, but the third party owns them for the first 15 years until Rutgers buys the panels from the third party. Rutgers has full rights to the electricity and the SREC's.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Generally the DEP requires replacement of trees (aka reforestation) at a 2:1 ratio, and it prefers to have the trees in the vicinity. Sometimes they will approve tree "banks" where an applicant can give money so that a third party can plant trees elsewhere or perform other environmental restoration projects. This is because it can be difficult to find and purchase land to reforest land in NJ that isn't environmentally sensistive (wetlands, archeology, riparian zones, ground contamination, etc). The only positive they have going for them is that SFGA is not in the Pinelands Preserve, which has its own stricter regulations on land use.

JACKSON – Six Flags Great Adventure plans to clear more than 18,000 trees to build a 90-acre solar farm capable of meeting virtually all of the theme park's electrical needs.

...

Six Flags and KDC Solar have pledged to replant 25,000 trees over a period of seven years. Most of the trees slated for removal are in "poor" or "very poor" condition, according to Six Flags spokeswoman Kristin Siebeneicher. A forester will oversee the replanting, she added.

...

"Hearing that they are going to be replanting those trees, it definitely sounds like it's going to a worthwhile initiative," Beavers said.

Although it isn't a 2 to 1 for the trees the park did pledge to replant more trees then the number of trees that are cut down.

Share on other sites

Still disappointed that they couldn't find a way to do this without cutting down so many trees. It's counter productive to do one thing that helps the environment while doing another thing that damages it. I know that they use the parking lot for events and stuff, but I'm sure they could at least used some of the lot for the panels and left some parts open that way they would cut down less trees.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Still disappointed that they couldn't find a way to do this without cutting down so many trees. It's counter productive to do one thing that helps the environment while doing another thing that damages it. I know that they use the parking lot for events and stuff, but I'm sure they could at least used some of the lot for the panels and left some parts open that way they would cut down less trees.

Don't forget that the plan is to plant more trees then the number of trees that come out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Still disappointed that they couldn't find a way to do this without cutting down so many trees. It's counter productive to do one thing that helps the environment while doing another thing that damages it. I know that they use the parking lot for events and stuff, but I'm sure they could at least used some of the lot for the panels and left some parts open that way they would cut down less trees.

There's still a net benefit to the environment in terms of Carbon Dioxide removal, plus they are replanting more trees than they take down. It's like one step back, three steps forward.

Also, they find a way to compromise and decrease the amount of trees from 100 acres down to 66 acres by using stronger panels and putting panels over the employee parking lot.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

At least Six Flags agreed to replace the cut down trees with new and better quality trees than the ones they are removing. They could have just purchased carbon offsets from another part of the world. I don't think I will ever understand someone who objects to this project, this isn't a rainforest or even nice land. Are people trying to protect the tick and poison ivy population? Does the mob have bodies buried in the woods that they don't want disrupted?

This is a good article explaining why the current plan to cut down all of the trees is the wrong way to go about this

I don think the article explains anything. It is what it says it is. Its an opinion. The opinion piece refers to things but doesn't give any evidence that the removal of the trees is bad. It does refer to material that I haven't read though.

The woman who wrote the opinion piece may not be wrong but she has strong opinion and it fits her agenda.

Again. I haven't seen al of the material so I don't know how to make an educated decision so I have to trust the people that should be educated and can make the proper decision. Yes, I said I should trust the decision makers LOL

I don think the article explains anything. It is what it says it is. Its an opinion. The opinion piece refers to things but doesn't give any evidence that the removal of the trees is bad. It does refer to material that I haven't read though.

The woman who wrote the opinion piece may not be wrong but she has strong opinion and it fits her agenda.

Again. I haven't seen al of the material so I don't know how to make an educated decision so I have to trust the people that should be educated and can make the proper decision. Yes, I said I should trust the decision makers LOL

Oh I understand that it is an opinion. But people have said they don't understand why people object to this project, and this article is from the view of someone who is against it and makes some good points. This part of the article catches by attention:

"What’s most disconcerting is how any company or individual could stick to a deforestation plan after listening to experts testify about the devastating environmental impacts, and possible harm to the area’s drinking water supply. That, coupled with the township’s lack of any environmental impact studies to weigh the effects on the public and surrounding environment, is reprehensible."

I don't know how much of that is actually true, since again this is an opinion article, not an official statement, but I am interested in finding out. If they really didn't do any environmental impact studies I could see that being a problem.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Oh I understand that it is an opinion. But people have said they don't understand why people object to this project, and this article is from the view of someone who is against it and makes some good points. This part of the article catches by attention:

"What’s most disconcerting is how any company or individual could stick to a deforestation plan after listening to experts testify about the devastating environmental impacts, and possible harm to the area’s drinking water supply. That, coupled with the township’s lack of any environmental impact studies to weigh the effects on the public and surrounding environment, is reprehensible."

I don't know how much of that is actually true, since again this is an opinion article, not an official statement, but I am interested in finding out. If they really didn't do any environmental impact studies I could see that being a problem.

This is the only bit of information in the entire piece. The rest is just trying to shift blame on Six Flags for the lack of progress and discrediting Six Flags' position with no real explanation or other options. (Not to mention, only lightly touching on just two of SF's reasons)

I'm pretty impressed she used the "they could've had solar power by now if they just gave into our demands" card.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Matt Kaiser

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is the only bit of information in the entire piece. The rest is just trying to shift blame on Six Flags for the lack of progress and discrediting Six Flags' position with no real explanation or other options. (Not to mention, only lightly touching on just two of SF's reasons)

I expect that as is the case in most arguments the truth is someplace in the middle of the 2 sides. Hopefully the end result has the most up side in the long run

Edited July 10, 2017 by scott

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

At least they are removing trees in an area of the state where trees are in abundance. It would be much different if they were proposing to cut down all those trees in a more urban or developed area, where trees are more coveted.